10 December 2007

The link above will take you to the sermon. My aim was to set Immanuel in the context of the entire Bible, rather than viewing a single text or story in isolation. Here is the outline:

Introduction:

I. First Moment: the ____________

II. Second Moment: the __________________

III. Third Moment: the ____________

A. The Crisis

B. The Challenge

C. The Child

IV. Fourth Moment: the __________

A. Who Is This?

B. What Did He Do?

C. What Will He Do?

I hope it proves a Christ-exalting blessing to such as choose to listen. There are also potentials for interpretive points-of-argument in this, among our sharp and varied readership. (Hel-lo, hinges on Isaiah 7:14, one of the perennially highly-contested passages.) My schedule today is such that I may not be able to interact as I'd prefer, at least earlier-on, but I'll do what I can.

This year for Christmas, our pastors are doing a sermon series on some of the Old Testament prophecies.

Last week, it was God's promises to Eve and Abraham in Genesis.

This week, it was Isaiah—including 7:14—and Jesus Christ's being both fully God and fully man. Good stuff, it was.

Thanks to the errant teaching of one Bishop Spong, I bought the "young woman" rendering of almah for years. It was good to hear someone preach unapologetically on the supernatural nature of Christ's birth.

So silly question, but why was Jesus not actually named Immanuel? No commentary I've read explains why the angel told Mary to call Him Jesus (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31) and not Immanuel (Is 7:14; Mt 1:23).

Or that Matthew and Luke both independently attest to this one key point, even though their birth narratives have very little in common on most other points (although they do complement and not contradict each other).

Why, it's almost as if "scholars" were more interested in denying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (and its implications for us, praise the Lord!), than carrying out objective, rational textual investigation....

"Why, it's almost as if "scholars" were more interested in denying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (and its implications for us, praise the Lord!), than carrying out objective, rational textual investigation...."

Sometimes a child was given a nickname other than his daily name (2 Samuel 12:24-25); also there are numerous prophetically-attached names which may be better thought of in our culture as titles or descriptions than call-by names.

On second thought, no. C.S. Lewis warned against putting one's mind into a devilish thought pattern (as he did while writing Screwtape). I've come close to having a stroke several times too many this week as it is. Instead, I'll just say..

I just finished listening. I gotta tell ya, I really had no idea where everything was tying in till about the last 10 to 15 minutes... and I thought the way you crafted everything was great. It was using the whole of the revelation of God in His Word to exalt the person and work Christ throughout all of history.

I especially appreciated seeing all the different ways that God "dwelt" or "tabernacled" with His people before Christ's incarnation, and then how in Christ He has permanently tabernacled with us.

Like a said ST, that is Dan Wallace's position on the verse, not mine. If I had to put money on djp or dw, I think dw is more likely correct. And it is not unprofitable to correctly interpret scripture. Not ever.

From the NET Bible commentary:

Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

Apparently, of the 9 times almah is used in the OT, it's always clearly referring to a virgin. If those who translated it into Greek thought it best translated by the Greek word for virgin before Christ's birth (thus with no agenda to read anything into the text), that should tell us something.

To be honest, though, I don't think either rendering damages a case for the virgin birth given the entirety of Scripture.

This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

And this is our proper interpretation. It does not matter what the normal usage is. Like all technical writing, terms are defined by the author. Those working terms, as they are called, are controlled by the definition that the author imposes upon them. It is therefore, the proper interpretation of Isaiah, unless, someone wants to argue that it was not the Holy Spirit that was authoring through the apostles, the meaning of parqenos and by extension the proper meaning of alma in the context of revelation. And here is that meaning: "But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit...And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus...How will this be, since I am a virgin...The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

Commentaries are great and should be quoted with understanding. The point of the commentary is clear. Even if the meaning in context is of the some non-virginal young woman in the kings court having a child, the prophetic meaning is not determined by that immediate context, but by further examination of Scripture. In this case there is no doubt that the meaning is a virginal woman who has never had sexual relations with a man, just as the commentator says. So, the best translation for understanding is virgin, and not young woman.

Mike, if you don't mind my saying, it isn't accurate to say that all nine usages clearly refer to a virgin. Some are unclear, but the 2-3 that are clear, clearly do refer to unmarried girls. They're all cited in an article I wrote titled To Tell the Truth, Virginia.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.